Network meta-analysis of comparative efficacy and safety of intubation devices in children

Abstract

AbstractTo evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of different intubation devices on intubation outcomes in pediatric intubation. We identified relevant studies from previous meta-analyses and literature retrieval in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was the first-pass success (FPS), and the secondary outcome included the time to intubation (TTI) and the risk of local complications (LC). Network meta-analysis was performed using STATA 14.0. Twenty-three randomized comparative trials (RCTs) including 12 devices were included. Compared with Macintosh, Airtraq (odds ratio [OR] = 13.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.68 to 36.38), Miller (OR = 4.77, 95%CI = 1.32 to 17.22), Glidescope (OR = 2.76, 95%CrI = 1.60 to 4.75) and McGrath (OR = 4.61, 95%CI = 1.18 to 17.99) obtained higher PFS. Meanwhile, Airtraq was superior to Glidescope (OR = 0.21, 95%CI = 0.07 to 0.65) for PFS. For TTI, Canada was superior to other intubation devices, as well as CMAC was superior to TruViewEVO2, Glidescope, and StorzDCI. Airtraq lowered the risk of LC compared with Macintosh and Pentax but there was no statistical difference between Airtraq and KingVision. Airtraq may be the optimal option for FPS, Canada for TTI, and KingVision for LC in pediatric intubation.